TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

Social Equality? So share the expenses of the wealthy, too.

Assuming socialism is right, the rich should give the poor their money. Why does it not also follow that the poor must also then share in the risks/debts/expenses/hard work/smart work/saving money which the wealthy use to create economic wealth?


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Apr 9 2013: I have read several but not all of the responses here, so my thoughts may have been covered. I'm not sure I understand the premise of the question. It sounds as if you are equating social equality with economic equality. Are they synonymous?

    Relative to the poor sharing in the risk, etc. it makes sense intuitively, however, there are very real challenges faced with trying to equalize these things. Money is tangible in that it can be counted and distributed. Terms like risk, hard work, and smart work work are subjective. Who decides and how is it decided that I am working "smart", or even capable of it?

    I've noticed that whenever folks discuss the merits and evils of government or monetary systems the negatives of one are invariably compared to the Utopian of another. Socialism as a concept may be a fine idea in it's Utopian state, but like any system, it's success depends on EVERYONE playing by the same rules. Systems that fail always fail because of corruption; someone is taking advantage of or exploiting rules that others are unable to utilize. Long bread lines come in many forms, but interestingly there are always people who never have to wait in them.

    There is one device common to every form of corruption that fosters separation and promotes privilege. Secrecy. Secrets of the few invariably undermine the "common good".

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.